I wish they would let teachers decide what is the best way to educate kids.

 

:thumb:

 

For the record, I think both KERA and NCLB have been horrible ideas.

 

:thumb:

 

If we plan on keeping up internationally, I think we need to make a move towards privatizing education. I know the whole "public v. private" thing has a bitter taste in this state, but it's about time we let parents decide which schools to send their kids, and let schools work to become attractive enough to have kids enroll.

For the record, I think both KERA and NCLB have been horrible ideas.

KERA's funding has been very helpful, in balancing the the inequities of funding between richer and poorer districts. However, it needs to be tweaked, especially for those districts that are experiencing aggressive growth.

Simply, the state government has done a poor job of funding many of the programs. Go back and look at the agancies that were in effect in the early years, and see how many have gone under due to lack of money.

NCLB, in the grand scheme of things is a decent idea, but it simply is an unfunded mandate.

One size doesn't fit all in public education.

One size fits all doesn't work in public education, people.

 

 

If so, then I assume you are in favor of the dual track education system found in other countries? Under that type of system, students are broken down into two tracks: a college prep track and a non college prep track. The groups attend two totally different schools with the curriculum and expectations being completely different. I think in Germany, the decision is made at approximately 15 years old. You either go to the college prep track (called the gymnasium) or go to a vocational school. I'm pretty sure I've got the German stuff right, although its been a really, really long time ago when I was taught that stuff.

If so, then I assume you are in favor of the dual track education system found in other countries? Under that type of system, students are broken down into two tracks: a college prep track and a non college prep track. The groups attend two totally different schools with the curriculum and expectations being completely different. I think in Germany, the decision is made at approximately 15 years old. You either go to the college prep track (called the gymnasium) or go to a vocational school. I'm pretty sure I've got the German stuff right, although its been a really, really long time ago when I was taught that stuff.

 

We did have that system. It was called college prep and vocational studies. The Bush Administration effectively ended that concept. Frankly, rightfully so.

KERA's funding has been very helpful, in balancing the the inequities of funding between richer and poorer districts. However, it needs to be tweaked, especially for those districts that are experiencing aggressive growth.

Simply, the state government has done a poor job of funding many of the programs. Go back and look at the agancies that were in effect in the early years, and see how many have gone under due to lack of money.

NCLB, in the grand scheme of things is a decent idea, but it simply is an unfunded mandate.

One size doesn't fit all in public education.

 

I'm not sure the work "tweaked" is quite strong enough. In my opinion the state needs to do a study every four years as to the needed cost per student for a school district to educate its students and then the state has to fund that entire amount. For various reasons, the cost of educating a student may be more in one district than others, so the funding per student would not be equal for all districts. If the taxpayers of a school district wanted to contribute additional sums (ie pay local taxes to the school district) to, in effect, provide funding for classes not part of the required basic curriculum or reduce the teacher student ratio to less than that recommended by the state or have facilities above and beyond those required to provide a solid public education, etc, then that funding would not reduce the amount of funds the state provides to that school district. It is the State's responsibility to pay for public education; not the local taxpayers. But the SEEK formula does just that; it shift the funding obligations, in part, to the local taxpayers that the state thinks can afford to bear the burden.

We did have that system. It was called college prep and vocational studies. The Bush Administration effectively ended that concept. Frankly, rightfully so.

 

 

What did you not like about that sytem and why? And I'm not necessarily a proponent of it, but I'd like to get your reasoning as you are very knowledgeable about education matters.

We did have that system. It was called college prep and vocational studies. The Bush Administration effectively ended that concept. Frankly, rightfully so.

The Holmes campus would be the idea setting, assuming that it was properly funded. They have vocational, traditional, advanced placement and IB all on the same campus. Of course, they have other problems that overshadow this setup.

If you ever get one of my chemistry students in your pharmacy, they will definitely know how to do ratio and proportion problems...I preach it like a religion!

I hope that I have the pleasure some day..it would be a breath of fresh air...and my utmost respect to you!!!:thumb:

What did you not like about that sytem and why? And I'm not necessarily a proponent of it, but I'd like to get your reasoning as you are very knowledgeable about education matters.

 

It would be a very long post. So many points but will hit a couple. I fail to see in our "flat" world, long "tail" or whatever buzz word to talk about commerce and opportunities, that such opportunities could well be excluded by a sort/select system. Bear in mind, many teachers are outstanding. But, I would NEVER accept the prognosis of education opportunity or predetermined availability by a teacher. That is not their job. Their job should be to excel past the student desire and limitation not pick and choose. That is one.

 

Further, we are a society of over 50% divorce, absent parent household (most due to drug use), etc. It is without question these circumstances warrant a hard impact on educational outcomes. The sort/select would significantly impact this group. Children who by no choice or circumstance of their own would be statistically targeted without any real measure or chance to excel past their frame of reference.

 

Lastly, for now anyway is the inherit bias of the sort/select done by school systems. How many times is reference made to who a child's parent is. There are teachers who reference the child's parent, make predetermined judgements and frankly, assumes a bias (both good and bad) without any real frame of reference.

 

NCLB in its core and the core I like, said STOP. Every child has a guaranteed right to have a system to encourage, push past the barriers, be exposed to learning - basically, guys, lets go swimming in the deep end of the pool of education. It forced all parties out of the structured comfort zones. The failing, is technology costs, measurements costs, repair or alterations costs and these items are significantly ignored by the NCLB mandate.

 

Enough for now but appreciate your kind question.

It would be a very long post. So many points but will hit a couple. I fail to see in our "flat" world, long "tail" or whatever buzz word to talk about commerce and opportunities, that such opportunities could well be excluded by a sort/select system. Bear in mind, many teachers are outstanding. But, I would NEVER accept the prognosis of education opportunity or predetermined availability by a teacher. That is not their job. Their job should be to excel past the student desire and limitation not pick and choose. That is one.

 

Further, we are a society of over 50% divorce, absent parent household (most due to drug use), etc. It is without question these circumstances warrant a hard impact on educational outcomes. The sort/select would significantly impact this group. Children who by no choice or circumstance of their own would be statistically targeted without any real measure or chance to excel past their frame of reference.

 

Lastly, for now anyway is the inherit bias of the sort/select done by school systems. How many times is reference made to who a child's parent is. There are teachers who reference the child's parent, make predetermined judgements and frankly, assumes a bias (both good and bad) without any real frame of reference.

 

NCLB in its core and the core I like, said STOP. Every child has a guaranteed right to have a system to encourage, push past the barriers, be exposed to learning - basically, guys, lets go swimming in the deep end of the pool of education. It forced all parties out of the structured comfort zones. The failing, is technology costs, measurements costs, repair or alterations costs and these items are significantly ignored by the NCLB mandate.

 

Enough for now but appreciate your kind question.

 

 

Thanks for the response. While I appreciate the concept that every child should get the same opportunities to succeed all the way through high school, I do wonder if our country can remain economically competitive if we continue to hold the gifted back and/or divert so much of our precious education dollars to kids that are unable or unwilling to take the course load necessary to turn out the scientists and engineers that we need. I know that flies in the face of the egalitarian approach to public education that has served us well in the past, but I am beginning to become convinced that for this country to remain the top economy in the world, things are going to have to change in public education. We can continue to hope that parents and kids wake up and see the need for intense high school education, but I'm not optimistic that will happen, particularly with the social safety net we provide for those that flunk out of high school or don't take their education seriously. Not to mention in detail the adverse effect those students have on the education of the other students that do want to learn and the morale of teachers.

 

I share your concerns about the separation process, but then again those "inequities" may be worth it in light of the benefits. Furthermore, I think the current process does play a role in kids leaving the public schools and going to the private schools that seem to have a much greater percentage of kids taking a college prep course load. Perhaps my perspective is wrong, but that's what seems to be happening. If the system is no proactively changed, with time it may happen anyway, with the private schools becoming the college prep track and the public schools becoming the vocational schools, which would be a terrible shame.

 

Just the rambling thoughts of a madman on Friday.

 

 

Just the rambling thoughts of a madman on Friday.

and approximate 180th day out of 188.

and approximate 180th day out of 188.

 

 

Now, now, lets play nice:banana: 'cause if you want to play mean, I'm game:laugh:

Leather, I disagree with private becoming college prep, especially in light of most recent data even the Bush Administration had to stand behind. The fact is, in core content instruction of science and math, scores among public school students and private schools actually had a measurable better result in the public school. Now, I know that flies in the face of what many would hold dear but I do ask to consider the advocate source, that being the Bush Administration, Secretary Spellings who had been advocating private school choice. Their own internal study really gutted the perception of private being better than public.

 

Also, you may be surprised to know the past year, China has significantly studied and reviewed NCLB and is actually making strides against its prior sort/select society. The basis which they make this on is the significant productivity value of an educated population instead of a limited number. India has also made steps to the same thought. England, for the first time and with tax increase is providing bus service for its students.

 

So, don't be ready to abandon ship on the public education front just yet. Remember, the worst educated child in America would still be more educated than 90% of the rest of the world.

 

Your thoughts are very similar and you may find interest in the common school system of Norway. Very similar to your suggestions. The program has many advocates and the country has established significant results in its education status.

 

To proactively change a system I would suggest a few that would ring the lighting bolts of Zeus. One, tenure would need to be changed. I would suggest tenure of status for every 4 years to be renewed. Far too many teachers and frankly, the profession hides its worst behind this shield. A good teacher may be good in the classroom. Allow me to ask, how do you make that case for good teacher instead of a great teacher?

 

Further, allow the retirement system altered so school districts can truly keep the best after retirement and allow significant compensation for them instead of silly 100 day contracts.

 

One other measure, establish a test model that follows a students learning year after year. Now a group year after year. What a 5th grade learns is important to know when the student is in 6th grade, not what the next 5th grade class learns. Off that, be prepared to deal with the problems of instruction where it will be statistically shown where a teacher is not doing the job. Back to tenure.

 

Thanks

Silver Shadow, you provide some accurate insight into the problem. As a teacher myself, let me comment on one that you did not mention - the inability to attract people into the profession. Every year, my school struggles to fill positions. Last year, we hired a science teacher and a science/math teacher two days before school started. One of them lasted less than a month and we had to go with someone emergency certified (business major) to fill the position the rest of the year.

 

Why are we not drawing more people into the profession, much less quality people? Could it be the low pay? Could it be that, coupled with the stress of getting kids to perform well on tests (ones in which the students are not held responsible for) that the state mandates that you do well, or your school will be taken over?

 

Ineffective teachers exist (as do people in any other profession that you could name). If we go in and remove the ineffective teachers right now, assuming we had certain criteria for doing so, we absolutely would not have enough new teachers to fill those positions (effective or ineffective).

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not promoting ineffectual teaching in the classroom. I consider myself to be a good teacher and am frustrated by some that aren't and those that do not give their best to their students. I have to work harder because of them (again, you will find it in all professions, I am sure). However, how are we going to draw qualified, effective people into the profession? Unless something changes and their are more incentives, I am afraid things will stay as they are.

For the record, I think both KERA and NCLB have been horrible ideas.

 

 

Others expressed this before. I think you will find the following school districts in Northern KY to be supportive of your idea: Beechwood, Ft. Thomas, Kenton, Campbell and Boone. Since you are discussing the failing of KERA and these are the lowest in the state in funding due to KERA, I think these districts look forward to having their funding more than doubled and still only be slightly above the state average. For the other districts, it would mean a cut of around 30% or more. Thanks to KERA, the above schools have underwritten the reast of the area for some time. Any chance of a refund check?